 |
|
tniem
|
|
Hope College
Apr 2000 time: 00:12
|
|
The reason Civ II has had the longevity that it has enjoyed has been customizable graphics not the reason that it has sold so well. For Civ III to sell well to a new group of gamers it has to have up to date graphics. That means 3d and probably hard to customize.
I personally so far like the new look. It needs to compete with other games on the market and it appears the units revealed do so. I agree something will be lost without customization but I don't think it will have any impact on the sales of Civ III.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
- Groucho -
|
|
I agree with Tniem. I played CIV2 from a couple of months after its release till SMAC came out (and I still fire it up occasionally). That is by far the longest any piece of software other than an operating system has been in continuous use on any of my computers.
Not once did I download a scenario with customized graphics.
I'm not knocking scenario builders. You guys do very cool work. I'm just saying that my enjoyment of the game had nothing to do with its graphic customisation potential. I just liked playing it.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Windborne
|
|
lansing, michigan, usa
Jan 2001 time: 05:12
|
|
My big worry is the emphasis on WARFARE, could they get a clue? Warfare was fine in civ II, everything else needs to be improved on before they even TOUCH the warfare model. So put these new ideas on the shelf and get working on the things that actually need improvement: AI, DIPLOMACY, TRADE, RELIGION (the lack thereof), PEACEFUL/ALTERNATIVE WAYS TO WIN, CULTURAL TRAITS, THE TRANSPORTATION MODEL, NUMBER OF CIVS, BARBARIANS . . . They've plenty to work on before they even think of the stuff they put on that web page, if they make this just another war game it will be the first civilization title I don't buy. . . And I even bought ctp and ctp II.
[This message has been edited by Windborne (edited January 09, 2001).]
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Adm.Naismith
|
 |
Milano - Italy
Oct 1999 time: 06:12
|
|
Dom Pedro II, do you miss the Firaxis post where they already wrote a Pro Editor will be needed for any Civ III custom graphics?
They suggested that for a complex game MOD must be made with professional tools (and to be fair it seems to me the same happened for last Quake / Unreal et al. mod).
I'll look for exact post link and I'll copy&past here ASAP, editing this message.
Found it: it appeared on different posts, but mainly on Dan Mahaga's post of november 25, 2000.
Windborne, Firaxis started the site from Military Units because lot of players enjoy wargames: they explicit mention this will not be the main aspect of game. Full stop. It's definitely too early to moan about the full game, IMO.
Firaxis team doesn't live in vacuum, they saw plenty of suggestions from us: using it or not will be their choice during next months (as it has been during previus months). Our choice is to suggest minor tuning on game aspect revealed (I hope at least monthly, is it right Dan? ), then we'll chose to buy the game or not when it will be released.
After all, good ideas left out of CIV III will be available for any other smart game developer looking around. 
------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant
[This message has been edited by Adm.Naismith (edited January 09, 2001).]
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Frugal_Gourmet
|
|
New York City, NY, USA
Jan 1970 time: 00:12
|
|
I, for one, pray to God that there is no -- as you say -- "complex market system".
The beauty of Civ has always been it's simplicity and fun -- not it's realism. Unless you think *realistically* managing a Civ from 4000 B.C. to the future would actually be fun.
Of course, if by "complex market system" you mean something a little more fun when it cames to trading & resources, then by all means...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
kenfitz
|
|
Westerville, OH, 43081
Dec 2000 time: 05:12
|
|
I agree with Enchida. I was introduced to Civilization in 1991 and have never put it down. I am also very impressed with some of the scenarios, but I have never touched them. I shut off the throne room, the Wonder movies, and the heralds. I love the game the way it is. Any improvement will make it better, as long as Sid Mier has something to do with it. I bought CTP and hate it, I still play Civ II MPG. I think providing the user with a means to tweak and modify is also very important, but it won't alter my descision to buy the game.
In my opinion, civ is one of the greatest games ever written. It is not only entertaining and competative, it teaches strategy, history, economics, government, and more. Unlike 90% of the games available, I wouldn't mind my kids playing it when they get a little older. I hope Civ III retains that quality. If CivIII doesn't retain Civ II's quality of education and respectability, I won't touch it.
I trust Sid Mier to produce a great game and plan on buying it the minute it comes out.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ralf
|
 |
Sweden
Mar 2000 time: 06:12
|
|
quote:

Originally posted by Dom Pedro II on 01-08-2001 09:32 PM
First of all, it seems like my dream of a complex market system is becoming less and less likely.
 |
The classic Civ fun/suspence-factor doesnt stand and fall with a "complex market system", the way I look at it.
Then it comes to incorporating economy in the game, its more about a challenging economy entirety-model, that (important) also lets a majority of non-economy-educated civ-3 buyers, play around with economical choices/inputs/outputs in its principal form. Check out Sids quote about Civ-3:
"We're focusing heavily on the areas of trade and commerce and the role they played in mankind's development throughout history. We think it will be fun to be able to corner the market by specializing in the production of oil, or wheeling and dealing with other civilizations to achieve mutual economic benefits or to cut off resources to a powerful enemy".
I think above quote sounds just like that. 
quote:

Second of all, many of the other concepts involving cities and rural populations that I have supported in the past are also not likely. I'll live.
 |
Im all for classic 21-tile city-areas. This system have millions of play-testing hours under its belt. The problems with changing these tried and tested solutions is that traditionalists automatically gets angry, and that (more importantly) such comprehensive changes with core-elements in the game, always carry a very real potential risk of opening some hard-to-patch "can of worms" problems.
Just check out what happened to the expanding city-areas concept, in CTP-2.
quote:

My primary concern is the unit graphics I'm saying. I certainly hope that these moving units will in no way hinder creating our own unit graphics. If we can't build scenarios with units that we can build from scratch, I won't touch this game. I'd rather keep the old Civilization 2. All the other customization and event files couldn't move me to buy it if I can't change the graphics. Not just units, but ALL graphics like in Civ 2.
 |
I hope they have a secondary setup of low-res alternatives, and that the player have the option to turn off the animation.
[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited January 09, 2001).]
|
|
|  |
 |
|
supremus
|
|
Customization is good, very good, really good. But, realistically, we shouldn't wait too much from Civ III in this field. What they offered in Civ II was possible because the graphics were very simple wich is not the case in Civ III (3D and animatronics). They will sell more than 4 million units even with no customization (at least not in the same Civ II level)
because it will be Civ III after all. And at last but not least, there will be Civ IV ok ? They will keep some extra features to the future for marketing reasons. The saga will continue ! (A propósito de onde estás clicando carioca D.Pedro II ?)
|
|
|  |
 |
|
tniem
|
|
Hope College
Apr 2000 time: 00:12
|
|
Warfare should be tackled first! Even peaceful civs have to deal with military for much of the game. Complex elements of the game can be added later but Civ III needs a base to begin on. That base in the warfare. Once warfare is tackled everything else should be able to slowly fall in place.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ralf
|
 |
Sweden
Mar 2000 time: 06:12
|
|
quote:

Originally posted by Windborne on 01-09-2001 06:04 AM
My big worry is the emphasis on WARFARE, could they get a clue? Warfare was fine in civ II, everything else needs to be improved on before they even TOUCH the warfare model.
 |
Well, i wouldnt go that far. The combat-model must be an improvement over both Civ-2 and SMAC. However, i agree with you then it comes to more emphazize on the AI (especially the strategical/logistical part), Economy, Culture and more Peaceful/Alternative ways to win. Thumbs up!
quote:

NUMBER OF CIVS
 |
If you thinking of 30+ simultaneously playing Civs - forget it. For AI-technical reasons and long, looong player turn-waiting reasons. Max 10, realistically 6-8. That is, if you want most of the AI-civs to be significantly stronger then 2-3 city Lichtenstein-empires, of course. Personally, im all in for Quality before Quantity.
[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited January 09, 2001).]
|
|
|  |
 |
|
yin26
|
 |
This space reserved for Darkstar.
Apr 1999 time: 14:12
|
|
Dom Pedro II,
That's one of the most difficult things about trying to improve a game from the fan side, at least from my experience on forums. People are only interested in providing organized and sustained feedback at 3 moments:
1) When plans to make the game are first announced (this is when The List was started).
2) When major updates and information are released (this is where we are now).
3) After the game is released.
Unfortunately, the most feedback by far comes at #3, which for all intents and purposes is too late. Sure, you can maybe get bugs fixed and (if you're really lucky) some simple features added, but the only real opportunity to affect the foundations of the game are at #1 (or even earlier).
Of course, it's much easier to criticize or praise something you already have in your hands (or at least know will be in the game or not). But by then, there ain't much that can be done about it.
So The List was our best bet to affect the underpinnings of Civ3, and I know we made some difference there. Our next big window of opportunity will be when we generate bug/feature lists, making sure that "our" priorities are clear for future patches. And from previous experience with Jeff Morris, our concerns will be taken seriously.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ralf
|
 |
Sweden
Mar 2000 time: 06:12
|
|
quote:

Originally posted by yin26 on 01-09-2001 11:35 PM
So The List was our best bet to affect the underpinnings of Civ3, and I know we made some difference there. Our next big window of opportunity will be when we generate bug/feature lists, making sure that "our" priorities are clear for future patches.
 |
If i have understood it correct that List was sent away before the Big Huge Game-defect and before the in-between Dinosaur-project. Those events did make everything concerning Civ-3 delayed somwhat. Having said that however, i think its obvious that they now have come past the brainstorming theoretical stage, and into practical programming, and even into play-testing some very premature beta-versions of the game, judging from the newly opened site.
You probably right, about any major principal game-changes, but still think there is hope for medium alterations that goes a little beyond "minor tweaks". Otherwise; why would they go out with the Civ3 editing tools threadh, and also; why would Dan Mahaga go out with the following mail-response 00-11-27:
"Ralf,
Thanks for your e-mail and for your general enthusiasm over the game. A lot of people here regularly read the forums at Apolyton on a daily basis. We do have copies of "the list" and as you're probably aware, we often refer to it when we want to know what "the hardcore fans" want most. The subject of editing tools and customization is a very important one and we know that you guys are the ones who will really be making use of these tools, so we definitely want to get your opinions. I think you'll probably see more posts regarding specific parts of the game on the forums there in the near future, so stay tuned.
In the meantime, thanks for your suggestions regarding editors and keep up the good work!"
(my underlining)
I certainly hope there is still some hope for alterations, especially in the strategical/logistical AI-area (my pet issue, sorry), and also around the all-important interface.
I cant help feeling that we perhaps got off with the wrong foot, with that gigantuan Godzilla List. In some areas although it was to little: I have read about the AI-suggestions in The List, and its rather pathetic.
Given that the major graphics-update + the added parameters in itself will pretty much swallow up any Computer performance-gains between SMAC and Civ-3, its absolutely vital that they really try to do something MORE with the AI, then they did in SMAC - especially in the strategical/logistical areas.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Windborne
|
|
lansing, michigan, usa
Jan 2001 time: 05:12
|
|
I'm still disapointed, and slightly mad, that the first thing they show when they open up the new site is more warefare.
We had more and better warfare in civilization II, not perfect but way above anything else in the game. If they keep tweaking that model they may ruin the chess-like elegence of the game to make it more realistic, complex, and important.
Area's like agriculture, trade, and diplomacy really should be at the top of the list for improving everything, including warfare. If they brought these area's, and the AI, up to par it would still be the best turn based strategy game ever.
But if they make the warfare complex and leave the rest hanging behind. . . it will be the worst turn based strategy game ever. There is no way they can make civ III the best combat simulation ever, that's a totally different and advanced feild, but it sure looks like they are trying!
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Frugal_Gourmet
|
|
New York City, NY, USA
Jan 1970 time: 00:12
|
|
You'll have to forgive me if I didn't know the specifics of your complex market system. I only check these forums from time to time.
However, I don't think the trick is having the idea itself. Everyone wants resources and economics to play an important part of the game -- just as they did in history.
The *real* trick is implementing them in such a way that they are fun, easy-to-use, non-beaureaucratic, and intuitive.
Simplicity is the key to Civilization.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Jon Miller
|
|
Before WW2 war was not lose-lose always (since then it is I think). Also I agree that work needs put into the other aspects (we do not know yet, however). I do ont think customisability is important (I take Civ straight), but understand it is important to sum, and it does increase life some. I don't think I have seen Yin post this much since the early days of the list. I trust Firaxis are doing their best to make a great game.
Jon Miller
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:12. Apolyton Time is 00:12. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|